5 ms·

> It is not the duty of every American to establish their own tax laws and form their own confederacy of themselves and do whatever they feel like. You're compa

> It is not the duty of every American to establish their own tax laws and form their own confederacy of themselves and do whatever they feel like. You're comparing the establishment of a government to the duty of a citizen. Does that mean that disobeying an unjust law is acceptable if a lot of people disobey? How many makes it acceptable? > MLK was a non-violent pacifist, and his march was legal. Not according to Circuit Judge W. A. Jenkins Jr., who issued an injunction that led to MLK's arrest in Birmingham. Nor were the sit-ins he participated in legal according to the segregation laws at the time. > Gandhi was arrested by an opposition government. He broke none of his nation's laws. India at the time was ruled by the British. If we're going to say that colonized or conquered nations don't count, where do we draw the line? How recent does the conquest have to be? > Mandela fought a war. He participated in revolution. Are we all supposed to lead revolutions? So again this seems like it comes down to amount of support, at least in your view. People can disobey unjust laws as long as they have enough people agreeing with them. Is that correct? > And promoting it as such is completely senseless in a country where peaceful discourse is a protected right. You already won! You have a peaceful way to make a difference! Why would you break laws to make a statement when you can already make a statement without risking a prison sentence? Because non-violent civil disobedience is often more effective than discourse. Rosa Parks broke the law and was arrested, and that ultimately lead to the law being declared unconstitutional. But if no-one broke the law, would it have been overturned as quickly? MLK went on marches that there were injunctions against, and participated in sit-ins that were against the segregation laws at the time. Would the campaign for civil rights been as successful if there was no civil disobedience at all? Suffragettes like Emmeline Pankhurst broke the law to draw attention to their cause. Would women have gotten the vote as soon if they obeyed the law?

trimethylpurine 1y ago
> Does that mean that disobeying an unjust law is acceptable if a lot of people disobey? How many makes it acceptable? No it doesn't. The establishment of government can be done without warfare in most cases, despite the nation's history. There was no framework for diplomacy or democracy within the kingdom. Your argument looks more like you've jumped to violence and lawlessness, even given alternatives. That's just bloodlust. That's not MLK. That's not Ghandi. You know that. > India at the time was ruled by the British. If we're going to say that colonized or conquered nations don't count, where do we draw the line? How recent does the conquest have to be? I won't entertain this example because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Is the US occupied by a foreign military, or are you just ignoring the political options at your disposal because you'd prefer to focus on how fast we can jump to arms and shoot each other? Let's skip this tangent. >So again this seems like it comes down to amount of support My argument against this example is that it's a last resort, while you're presenting it as the option of choice. A duty, no less. >Because non-violent civil disobedience is often more effective than discourse. It's sometimes more effective in the absence of alternatives. And non-violent civil obedience is most often effective and in most cases far more persuasive with the majority. Prioritize your efforts. No need to get violent when we can be disobedient. No need to get lawless when we can participate in democracy. Even fools won't follow a fool. >Rosa Parks broke the law and was arrested, and that ultimately lead to the law being declared unconstitutional. It was already unconstitutional. She didn't break the law. The judicial branch doesn't make new laws, it interprets existing ones. Her disobedience was lawful, and only required because she lacked a platform to reach the courts. >(MLK...) Would the campaign for civil rights been as successful if there was no civil disobedience at all? Same thing here, it was already unconstitutional to prevent peaceful demonstrations. Opposing local government with the law on your side to get the attention of a superior governing body is disobedience but as we can see by the court rulings, it's in fact not unlawful. Even if it were unlawful behavior, it is not a duty. I have no imperative to go looking for laws to break, and anyone who tells me I have to is sick. I'm not MLK. There's 10 examples in history that this panned out for. I'm not such a megalomaniac as to think I'm going to be one of them. And I certainly don't think we all are. It's not a duty. The claim is simply absurd.
- weavejester 1y ago
  > There was no framework for diplomacy or democracy within the kingdom. Your argument looks more like you've jumped to violence and lawlessness, even given alternatives. Why do you assume that disobeying unjust laws automatically implies violence? The only example I've given that involves violence is the American War of Independence, and only then because it's particularly pertinent to the idea that Americans have a duty to disobey unjust laws. All my other examples have been non-violent civil disobedience. When someone tells me that they believe they have a duty to disobey unjust laws, my first thought isn't that they intend to be violent; it's that they intend to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. You can believe that you have a duty to disobey unjust laws and also believe that violence is a last resort. > Is the US occupied by a foreign military, or are you just ignoring the political options at your disposal because you'd prefer to focus on how fast we can jump to arms and shoot each other? The US was founded by foreign invaders. This is why I ask how recent a conquest needs to be. By the time Gandhi was protesting in the 1930s, India had been under British rule for over 170 years. If Gandhi is morally justified to defy laws set by the invading British, then Native Americans are surely morally justified to defy laws set by the invading US government. And again, you jump to the idea that defying unjust laws automatically means shooting people. > It's sometimes more effective in the absence of alternatives. And non-violent civil obedience is most often effective and in most cases far more persuasive with the majority. Prioritize your efforts. No need to get violent when we can be disobedient. Then we effectively agree. How long do you think we should give a government to fix an unjust law before engaging in civil disobedience and disobeying that law? Presumably it depends on the severity of the injustice, but I'm interested to get a feel for your intuition on this. > It was already unconstitutional. She didn't break the law. The judicial branch doesn't make new laws, it interprets existing ones. Her disobedience was lawful, and only required because she lacked a platform to reach the courts. So is someone justified in breaking the law if they believe that law will be overturned by a higher one? What if they're wrong? Also, how would we test laws for constitutionality if no-one ever breaks those laws? Surely there needs to be something that brings the case in the first place. > Even if it were unlawful behavior, it is not a duty. I have no imperative to go looking for laws to break, and anyone who tells me I have to is sick. So if someone tells you that you have a duty to behave morally, that person is sick? Doesn't that include the vast majority of Americans, who at least in theory follow religions that advocate people act morally above all else? You seem to acknowledge that civil disobedience, even violence, can be justified as a last resort. Yet you also seem to hold legal obligations higher than moral ones, and are dismissive of people who'd choose morality over legality.

trimethylpurine 1y ago

> Does that mean that disobeying an unjust law is acceptable if a lot of people disobey? How many makes it acceptable? No it doesn't. The establishment of government can be done without warfare in most cases, despite the nation's history. There was no framework for diplomacy or democracy within the kingdom. Your argument looks more like you've jumped to violence and lawlessness, even given alternatives. That's just bloodlust. That's not MLK. That's not Ghandi. You know that. > India at the time was ruled by the British. If we're going to say that colonized or conquered nations don't count, where do we draw the line? How recent does the conquest have to be? I won't entertain this example because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Is the US occupied by a foreign military, or are you just ignoring the political options at your disposal because you'd prefer to focus on how fast we can jump to arms and shoot each other? Let's skip this tangent. >So again this seems like it comes down to amount of support My argument against this example is that it's a last resort, while you're presenting it as the option of choice. A duty, no less. >Because non-violent civil disobedience is often more effective than discourse. It's sometimes more effective in the absence of alternatives. And non-violent civil obedience is most often effective and in most cases far more persuasive with the majority. Prioritize your efforts. No need to get violent when we can be disobedient. No need to get lawless when we can participate in democracy. Even fools won't follow a fool. >Rosa Parks broke the law and was arrested, and that ultimately lead to the law being declared unconstitutional. It was already unconstitutional. She didn't break the law. The judicial branch doesn't make new laws, it interprets existing ones. Her disobedience was lawful, and only required because she lacked a platform to reach the courts. >(MLK...) Would the campaign for civil rights been as successful if there was no civil disobedience at all? Same thing here, it was already unconstitutional to prevent peaceful demonstrations. Opposing local government with the law on your side to get the attention of a superior governing body is disobedience but as we can see by the court rulings, it's in fact not unlawful. Even if it were unlawful behavior, it is not a duty. I have no imperative to go looking for laws to break, and anyone who tells me I have to is sick. I'm not MLK. There's 10 examples in history that this panned out for. I'm not such a megalomaniac as to think I'm going to be one of them. And I certainly don't think we all are. It's not a duty. The claim is simply absurd.

weavejester 1y ago
> There was no framework for diplomacy or democracy within the kingdom. Your argument looks more like you've jumped to violence and lawlessness, even given alternatives. Why do you assume that disobeying unjust laws automatically implies violence? The only example I've given that involves violence is the American War of Independence, and only then because it's particularly pertinent to the idea that Americans have a duty to disobey unjust laws. All my other examples have been non-violent civil disobedience. When someone tells me that they believe they have a duty to disobey unjust laws, my first thought isn't that they intend to be violent; it's that they intend to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. You can believe that you have a duty to disobey unjust laws and also believe that violence is a last resort. > Is the US occupied by a foreign military, or are you just ignoring the political options at your disposal because you'd prefer to focus on how fast we can jump to arms and shoot each other? The US was founded by foreign invaders. This is why I ask how recent a conquest needs to be. By the time Gandhi was protesting in the 1930s, India had been under British rule for over 170 years. If Gandhi is morally justified to defy laws set by the invading British, then Native Americans are surely morally justified to defy laws set by the invading US government. And again, you jump to the idea that defying unjust laws automatically means shooting people. > It's sometimes more effective in the absence of alternatives. And non-violent civil obedience is most often effective and in most cases far more persuasive with the majority. Prioritize your efforts. No need to get violent when we can be disobedient. Then we effectively agree. How long do you think we should give a government to fix an unjust law before engaging in civil disobedience and disobeying that law? Presumably it depends on the severity of the injustice, but I'm interested to get a feel for your intuition on this. > It was already unconstitutional. She didn't break the law. The judicial branch doesn't make new laws, it interprets existing ones. Her disobedience was lawful, and only required because she lacked a platform to reach the courts. So is someone justified in breaking the law if they believe that law will be overturned by a higher one? What if they're wrong? Also, how would we test laws for constitutionality if no-one ever breaks those laws? Surely there needs to be something that brings the case in the first place. > Even if it were unlawful behavior, it is not a duty. I have no imperative to go looking for laws to break, and anyone who tells me I have to is sick. So if someone tells you that you have a duty to behave morally, that person is sick? Doesn't that include the vast majority of Americans, who at least in theory follow religions that advocate people act morally above all else? You seem to acknowledge that civil disobedience, even violence, can be justified as a last resort. Yet you also seem to hold legal obligations higher than moral ones, and are dismissive of people who'd choose morality over legality.